Figures
The calculation of the effect sizes in Study 2 is incorrect. The denominator N should reflect the number of observations (number of participants * number of measures) and not sample size, as previously used in the analysis.
In the Study 2 results subsection of Study 2, there is an error in the last sentence of the first paragraph. The correct sentence is: Neither young nor older adults improved solely due to repeated task execution when comparing initial performance (perceptual sensitivity, judgment tendency) in the experimental session of Study 1 with pre-training performance in the first session of Study 2 (young: Z ≤ -0.40, p ≥ .329, r ≥ .063; older adults: Z ≤ 0.0, p ≥ .218, r ≥ .0).
In the Study 2 results subsection of Study 2, there is an error in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph. The correct sentence is: Significant training effects were found with effect sizes ≥ .3 ([53]; see Table 2).
In Table 2, the column with reported effect size values are incorrect. Please see the correct Table 2 here.
Reference
- 1. Finkel L, Engler S, Randerath J (2019) Does it fit?–Trainability of affordance judgments in young and older adults. PLoS ONE 14(2): e0212709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212709 pmid:30817755
Citation: Finkel L, Engler S, Randerath J (2019) Correction: Does it fit?—Trainability of affordance judgments in young and older adults. PLoS ONE 14(4): e0215438. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215438
Published: April 10, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 Finkel et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.